RISE of the New World Order

RISE of the New World Order

Of all the financial titans and philanthropists of the 20th century, none are more complex or mysterious than George Soros. Like Carnegie, JP Morgan, and the Rockefellers, he ama.ssed billions through ruthless business decisions only to turn around and give away most of his fortune to advance his own personal philosophy.

He can move world financial markets simply by voicing an opinion or dest4bilize a government by buying and selling its currency.  He also pledged more aid last year to help people in Russia than the US government did. Few people have been called kingmaker, philanthropist, world changer, and possible war criminal all wrapped in the  same person.

One man has worn all of these crowns and has been proclaimed as one of the greatest humanitarians in history, adored by the progressive left worldwide. He has also been called a villain, criminal, and robber baron, responsible for the destruction of economies and societies, making billions at the expense of the very people he claims to a.ssist.

But he also has been called a betr4yer of his fellow Jews. Let’s take a closer look at George Soros. Who is George Soros? Why is his background so questionable? Why have the left wing media tried to hide the facts of his life? How did he become so wealthy just after World W4r II? Why do some consider him a great supporter of American terrorist organizations and someone trying to destr0y the Federal Republic? Hello, I’m Colin Heaton, former history professor, Army and Marine Corps veteran, and welcome to this episode of

Forgotten History. George Soros was born George Suks on April 12th, 1930 to father Tividar and mother Elizabeth Suks. Suks himself was a successful Jewish attorney in Budapest with great political connections. Being Jewish with those connections, Tibidar saw what was coming.  So, he bought forged documents for his family, changing their name and religion, and bribed a friend who was a local government official to claim that 14 year old George was in fact his Christian godson.

What follows is a serious indictment on the Soros family and even George Seros himself. When I was staying with a friend in Austria in 1999 doing his interview, we went to the local meat market where we were talking. This was where an older lady who said her name was Elizabeth Roxny, spelling in question, with a very thick accent  who asked in me in broken English if I was an American.

I said yes. She asked me if I knew a man in America named George Soros. I told her no because at that time I had never heard of George Soros. Then she told me a chilling story. According to her, Soros was originally George Suks and the family, despite being Jewish, had turned on their fellow Jews in a village just outside of Budapest, working with the Arocross Party, which they called the government of national unity.

These were Hungarian fascist and Nazi collaborators. Raknney said that there were many families who all knew the Soroses under their actual name and that the family ran the local black market with local political support. She said that starting in early 1944,  George Soros along with his father, uncle, and a family friend began extorting their neighbors for protection.

Tividar Zuks bribed local officials he knew in government and had new identity papers created giving the family their new name of Soros altering their background declaring they were Catholic thereby inoculating them from the roundup of Jews that was coming which Tividar Suks knew was coming from his friends in the Budapest government.

Elizabeth Roxney said that the Souks or Soros family would offer to hide and protect their Jewish friends as the Germans increased their presence and the SS began their roundups just after Easter, including providing new identity papers. This was where Elizabeth’s story became even more interesting.  According to her, the Soros family under their new identities a.ssisted the Arocross party and took all the money, jewel refers, anything of value over several months as protection to hide them from the Germans and later they

took the titles to their property. Hungary’s regent Admiral Nicholas Horthy Dagbayana had joined the Axis along with Romania and Bulgaria earlier and he and Hitler had a very cruel relationship at first. Hungarian sold1ers even supported German operations on the Eastern front at a very high price.

But Hitler began insisting upon Horthy handing over his Jews, saying they must either be exterminat3d or put in concentration camps, something Horthy resisted for almost 4 years. April 1944 was when Hitler sent Adolf Ikeman into Budapest to deport Hungary’s estimated 800,000 Jews with 200,000 being in Budapest alone and most would go to Alvitz Bknol.

Hitler then sent SS Major Otto Scorznney to kidnap Miklo Horthy Jr. forcing his father into compliance. Admiral Horthy resigned and was replaced by the rabbid anti semite Fairing Salazi the leader of the Arocross party. But according to Heraxy herself when the bribes ran out, the Surus brothers along with the fake godfather of young George forced them to sign over their property deeds, essentially stealing their homes and farms.

When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros’s father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14 year old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson.

But surv1val carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the de4th camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews. Eventually, all of the Jews in their village, which she said numbered over 300, were betr4yed by the Soros family and handed over for deportation as Ikeman then deported 437,42 Jews to Alzer Canal in only 60 days.

These are pictures from 1944 of what happened to George Soros’s friends and neighbors. She saw her entire family, parents, older brother, and sister taken one morning as they were located hiding under the floor of a barn on their property. The reason she was not taken was because her father has sent her out at age 10 before dawn to gather eggs which they would eat raw.

As she stated, “When I came back, my family and all of the others under their protection were being loaded on a truck with many other Jewish friends who they all knew, and I knew.” All had been betr4yed by the Soros family. I never saw any of them again. I was the only survivor. She saw George there that morning, pointing to where people were hiding with a man she did not know.

This was presumably his father’s friend, the supposed godfather who was a member of the Arocross party.  My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours  who swore that you were uh his adopted godson.  Went out  in fact and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.  That’s right.

Despite his later claims that he was only an observer, Soros was, according to the witness, a willing and active participant by betr4ying the people he grew up with for profit. Or was he just a child following the orders of his older relatives and a friend? At this point, it does not matter because he cannot be prosecuted under international law for those crimes due to the fact that he was under the age of 15 at that time.

that was determined the age of culpability as governed by the Geneva Convention of 1929.  Well, actually funny way, it’s just like in markets that if I weren’t there, of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would would would be taking it away anyhow. You know, was the whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator. The property was being taken away.

It has been presumed that with the confiscation of Jewish property in 1944 to 1945 and then selling those properties to non Jewish Hungarians, the family made a nice profit. In addition, the cash, jewels, and other a.ssets extorted from their friends and neighbors were probably traded or sold on the black market, and this would explain the family’s expanding wealth.

This wealth would have been needed to bribe the postwar communist officials if that is in fact what happened. because leaving Hungary under Soviet occupation was not an easy thing to do and bribery was commonplace. Ironically, in a 60 Minutes interview in  1998, Soros virtually admitted what his family had done.

Soros had tried for years to have this episode removed from the CBS archives and scrubbed from the internet.  Was it difficult?  Not Not at all. Not at all.  What is of interest is that when Saros and his family left Hungary and arrived in England in 1947, he was a very rich young man when every other Jew in Hungary had lost everything, in most cases even their lives.

George Soros stud1ed philosophy under Carl Pulper at the London School of Economics, but decided against becoming a philosopher and joined the London Bank Singer and Freelander. In 1956, he and the family moved to New York City where he worked initially as an analyst of European securities and became an expert in currency exchanges and European markets.

There he worked as an arbitrage trader with FM Meyer from 1956 to 1959  and as an analyst with Veritime and Company from 1959 to 1963. From 1963 to 1973, he worked at Arnold and S. Blackroer, becoming the vice president, and he persuaded the company to set up an offshore investment fund in 1967 called First Eagle for him to run.

Then in 1969, the company founded a second fund for Soros, the Double Eagle Hedge Fund. When investment regulations restricted his ability to run the funds as he wished, he quit his position there in 1973 and est4blished a private investment company that became Quantum Fund. George Soros had the seed money from his family  and this was always in question.

With profits from this fund, he started the Soros Fund Management in 1973. Eventually, Double Eagle was renamed the quantum fund officially and it became the primary  hedge fund that Soros advised. His knowledge of regional and global economic trends combined with his deep pockets and tolerance for risk uh has allowed him to ama.ss a fortune now valued in the billions.

In 1984, Soros began investments in the W4rsaw packed nations under communism, especially his native Hungary, starting scholarships, and he managed to operate in the country without any communist government interference, which means he spread a lot of money around. He expanded his operations into Czechoslovakia, Poland, Russia, and Yugoslavia just as communism was collapsing.

But many of the old regime were still in power. Even the communists had their price. Soros has a history of dest4bilizing economies and then swooping in to pick up the pieces as a ruthless robber baron like no other in history. Soros makes huge bets on whole countries in economies. Last year when he saw cracks in the Asia boom, he began selling the currency in Thailand.

Traders in Hong Kong followed suit, triggering a financial crisis that plunged much of Asia into a depression. Soros has been on a rampage for decades, trying to undermine international markets, dest4bilize economies in order to est4blish a new  world order dominated by himself and other like minded socialist financial elites.

In the last two years, you’ve been bl4med for financial collapse of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, and Russia.  All of the All of the above.  All of the above.   Are you that powerful?  No. I think there’s a great misunderstanding. the prime minister of of Malaysia.   Yes.  Um said that the region spent 40 years trying to build up its economy and along comes a  like  Soros  with a lot of money and it’s all over.

He called you a criminal.  He poured $2 billion into Russia in the 1990s to essentially become the major shareholder in that nation’s economy and asked the US Federal Reserve for a  $7 billion loan to help. But why? Well, when the Fed refused, he suggested that the ruble be devalued as much as 25%, which would make his investment even stronger to gain control, which fueled the crash.

Soros also threw his money around the world, including Haiti, Bosnia, and nations in Africa during the 1990s. He poured hund00 million into Russia again to help their scientists maintain control of intellectual property with his IOU attached and paid to train the Ukrainian military after the fall of the USSR when Ukraine  became independent.

In September 1992, the British government devalued the pound sterling as Soros had just sold billions of pounds during the days before the devaluation, much of it purchased with borrowed money. He had just sold the Italian lura short and it proceeded to devalue and he later came back in and bought them back for a profit. After the crash in Italy and Britain, Soros also bought back British pounds at a ma.ssive discount, repaid the money he had borrowed in the first place and made a profit of about $1 billion in just one day and earned the nickname the man who

broke the Bank of England. When the dust settled on both actions, he made a total of $2 billion profit. In December 2002, a French court convicted Soros of insider trading for a 1988 stock  deal involving financial services company Societ General and he was fined €2.2 million or  $2.9 million.

Soros appealed the ruling, but it was upheld by the court disseession, which is France’s Supreme Court in 2006. Facing new federal regulations concerning hedge funds, Soros announced in July 2011 that the Quantum Endowment Fund would no longer manage the money of outside investors. Instead, it would only handle the a.ssets of Soros and his family in offshore accounts.

In 2003, Soros created startup funding for the liberal think tank, the Center for American Progress, pledging millions of dollars to groups such as move on.org to oppose the re election of Republican President George W. Bush in 2004. He later financially supported the Democratic Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012 and he donated to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election and to Joe Biden in 2020.

In 2010, Soros had given $100 million to the non governmental organization Human Rights  Watch. Despite left wing media organizations trying to provide cover for Soros by denying that he funded domestic terror groups, George Soros’s philanthropic group, the Open Society Foundations,  admittedly invested $220 million in various racial, social justice organizations and leaders.

This includes primarily the domestic  terror groups Black Lives Matter and Antifa. They even announced it months in advance of the  riots that cost about $2 billion in damages and cost several lives. Soros has personally donated more than $32 billion to so called left wing charitable causes through his grant making network, the Open Society Foundations.

His political support deeply extended into US state and local politics. He spent billions helping progressive radical Democrats running for various offices from governors to district attorneys and attorneys general. He a.ssisted in the campaigns to elect the criminal DAs Fanny Willis in Fulton County, Georgia, Alvin Bragg in New York City, and many liberal judges nationwide.

He also poured money into California races to prop up progressive liberals and also sent millions to the Democratic challenger to Republican Senator Ted Cruz  in Texas. All of these persons have been brought out into the light for their illegal, selective, unethical, and radical applications of state and federal laws, thereby exposing the deep state.

and see our video on that subject. Regarding the betr4yal of not just his fellow Jews, but his family’s friends and neighbors, George Soros has no feelings of guilt for his actions. I don’t feel guilty because I’m engaged in an amoral activity which is not meant to have anything to do with guilt. Soros demands that all other businesses, investment groups, and hedge funds  adhere to the rules and regulations which he himself avoids.

Part of the reason he is so rich is that the Soros hedge funds operate offshore in the Netherlands Antilles to avoid scrutiny by the Securities and Exchange Commission. So even while Soros tells Congress and the Treasury that hedge funds must be regulated to stop the global crisis, he’s avoiding the rules. So, how does George Soros make his wealth  and escape regulations and scrutiny without abiding by the very rules that apply to all other Americans? Rules he supports as he is a citizen.

How does he do it? He avoids scrutiny by the IRS and Security Exchange Commission as well as other international agencies due to his methods of operating outside of US jurisdiction  because the fund is not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Uh so so uh we we are not licensed to do business in the United States.

That’s right. because because we are not registered with the securities exchange commission.  George Soros, the investment genius, is also by some definitions a criminal mastermind determined to destr0y the free market system in the USA  and around the world and est4blished a global digital currency that is managed by the Marxist global elites.

Today, George Soros has an estimated wealth of $7.2 2 billion, but that number may be much larger given his offshore accounts that cannot easily be monitored. Whether or not you support, oppose, believe, or disbelieve  the stories of George Soros, just remember what he said in his own words back from high school algebra.

But let’s let’s take a look. Uh, first we’ve got population. Uh, the world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15%. But there we see an increase of uh about 1.3.

He started as the boy genius behind Microsoft, the man who put a computer in every home and software in every office. But after making his billions, Bill Gates didn’t just retire. He rebranded himself as a global philanthropist. He poured his fortune into health, agriculture, education, climate, media, even population control.

But philanthropy was only half the story. Somehow the man who gave us Microsoft now funds the World Health Organization, owns more US farmland than anyone alive, pushes synthetic meat and insects for food, bankrolls global media outlets,  and wants to vaccinate the entire planet. This isn’t about health, it’s about power.

And the question isn’t what is Bill Gates doing, it’s who gave him this power. So, how does one unelected man have more control over your health, your food, and your future than most world leaders? And is Bill Gates really saving the world or quietly redesigning it to serve his own vision? Let’s try and find out. Hello, I’m Mike Joberg, Marine Corps veteran and filmmaker, and we will try to answer these questions on today’s episode of Forgotten History.

I’m fire. He was the awkward genius from Seattle, a Harvard dropout with a vision. In 1975, Bill Gates co founded Microsoft, a coding software that would shape the modern world. By the 1990s, Microsoft had a near total monopoly. Gates became the world’s richest man. But it wasn’t just brilliance, it was domination.

He crushed the competitors and he was taken to court for antirust violations. He was accused of leveraging his empire to destr0y rivals. But by the early 2000s, something changed. Gates stepped down from day to day operations at  Microsoft, and instead of retiring quietly, he pivoted. He rebranded himself, not as a businessman, but as a philanthropist.

Gates isn’t the first tycoon to trade domination for image rehab. A century ago, John D. Rockefeller did the same thing. After ruthless oil monopolies made him the most h@ted man in America, he reinvented himself through donations, foundations, and public goodwill. Gates followed the exact same playbook, only this time with digital power.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation launched in 2000, claiming to tackle poverty, disease, and inequality. But this was more than charity. It was influence. By giving billions away, Gates bought a seat at every global table that mattered. From the United Nations to the World Health Organization, from Silicon Valley to the Vatican, he was no longer just the man behind Microsoft.

He was quietly becoming the man behind everything. Bill Gates says he’s just saving lives. But what he’s really doing is shaping them and without your consent. After launching the Gates Foundation, he funneled billions into global health initiatives. At first glance, it looked like charity. But Gates wasn’t just donating. He was buying influence.

His foundation became the largest private donor to the World Health Organization, donating over 5.5 billion, second largest donor to the WH, just behind the United States. And that kind of  money doesn’t come without strings. He also funded Gabby, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and  Immunization, and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, SEPY, donating over $4.

1 billion to those organizations on top of funding multiple pha.rmaceutical R&D pipelines. He pushed vaccines worldwide, especially across Africa and India. What the mainstream never asked was what were the side effects? In India, a Gatesf funded HPV vaccine trial was suspended after several girls d1ed. In 2014, the Catholic Church in Kenya accused the Gatesfunded vaccine campaign of secretly sterilizing women.

They alleged that the vaccines were laced with hCG, a hormone that when combined with tetanis toxoid could prevent pregnancy. According to church officials, tests from independent labs found hCG in six out of nine samples of the vaccine. Over two million were vaccinated, but the WHO denied it. Gates denied it. But the controversy was buried and never resolved.

And to this day, no one knows how many women may have been affected. But it wasn’t just about vaccines. And so cows alone uh account for about 6% of global emissions. And so we need to change  cows. Cows just cows alone. Uh  how are we going to do that?  Well, actually of all the categories, uh the one that has gone better than I would have expected 5 years ago is this work to make what’s called artificial meat.

Kate also became the largest private owner of farmland in the United States. Not farming it, owning it over 260,000 acres. While telling the world to cut carbon emissions, he quietly ama.ssed the land that grows our food. Then he started pushing synthetic meat and bug protein as a climatefriendly solution. And who funds the factories making those bug based burgers? Well, Gates does.

He says it’s about sustainability, but when a billionaire tells you to eat insects while he eats steaks, that’s not a solution. That’s a new form of cla.ss control. And his hypocrisy didn’t stop there. He tells the world to cut carbon while racking up more private jet emissions than most people produce in a decade.

In one year alone, Gates lobbed over 200,000 m in private air travel. When asked about it, he said he offsets it with carbon credits like a digital indulgence for the climate elite. Gates also poured over $300 million into media outlets, hundreds of them, NPR, the BBC, The Guardian, even academic journals. They rarely criticize him because they’re paid not to.

He funds education initiatives, digital ID systems, even pandemic simulations. His reach is so vast it’s nearly impossible to track. From Microsoft to mosquitoes, from malaria to media, Bill Gates has positioned himself as the unelected architect of global policy. All under the mask of philanthropy. And through it all, no votes, no deb4tes, no accountability, just a quiet, coordinated expansion of control over the systems that decide who eats, who works, who travels, and who lives.

The question isn’t whether Gates is involved. It’s how much of your life he already owns. If this was just about philanthropy, it would end here. But it doesn’t. Because the deeper you look into Bill Gates’s global empire, the darker it gets. Starting with Jeffrey Epstein.  Was reported at that time uh that you had a number of meetings with Jeffrey Epstein who when you met him 10 years ago, he was convicted of soliciting prostitution from minors.

What did you know about him when you were meeting with him, as you’ve said yourself, in the hopes of raising money? Is there a  lesson for you, for anyone else looking looking  at this?  Well, he’s de@d, so uh you know, in general, you always have to be careful. Uh and you know, the you know, I’m I’m very proud of what we’ve done in philanthropy, very proud of the work of the foundation.

Uh you know, I that’s that’s what I get up every day and focus on. Gates met with Epstein multiple times. He claimed it was about philanthropy, but his own wife, Melinda Gates, later cited those meetings as a key reason for their divorce. Why would the world’s richest man need advice from a convicted pedophile? Then there’s the Vatican.

Most people missed it, but Gates met with Pope Francis to discuss global health, vaccines, and inequality. That’s right, a software billionaire advising the Vatican on morality and human life. And then came the pandemic. Before CO ever hit, Gates was already warning us about it. In 2015, he gave a TED talk predicting a global viral outbreak.

Then in late 2019, just weeks before the first cases emerged, his foundation co hosted event 2011, a simulated corona virus pandemic down to economic shutdowns and social media censorship. When the real thing hit, Gates was ready. He funded vaccine production, backed digital vaccine pa.ssports, and became the face of the global response.

Governments listened, the media obeyed, and the profits poured in. Even now, he warns of the next pandemic with an almost gleeful tone. Why does he always seem to know what’s coming? Why does he always benefit from the fallout? And why does no one ever question the man who tells the world to get injected, eat bugs, stop farming, and hand over control of their health and land? Bill Gates was also the primary force behind the creation and roll out of Common Core, the national education standards adopted by 45 US states almost

overnight. Through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, he poured over 200 million into developing the standards, funding advocacy groups, curriculum companies like Pearson, and even teachers unions to ensure widespread adoption. But Common Core wasn’t tested, wasn’t deb4ted publicly. It wasn’t created by educators.

It was a top down experiment backed by a billionaire money. Parents and teachers across the country pushed back after seeing the results. Confusing math methods, declining test scores, and a one sizefits all approach that ignored local needs. Even Gates later admitted the robot had failed. But by then, the damage was done, and their standards remained embedded in textbooks, testing systems, and cla.ssrooms across the country.

But when you control the narrative, you don’t need force. You just need time. Bill Gates has no army, no government title, no borders to defend. And yet, he controls more of your life than most presidents ever will. He influences what you eat, where your medicines come from, what your children are taught, what your news anchors say, and what the next global crisis will look like because he’s already funding it.

All without a single vote cast in his name. When a man like that tells the world he’s just trying to help, maybe it’s time to stop listening. Maybe it’s time to ask a different question. Not what is Bill Gate doing, but who allowed this to happen? Because power like this doesn’t appear overnight. It’s built slowly, silently, funded, protected, and normalized until you forget it’s even there.

He’s not hiding. He doesn’t have to. He already won. So now the question is yours to answer. How much longer are you going to pretend it’s not your problem? According to the Pearson Institute International Economics, globalization is the word used to describe the growing interdependence  of the world’s economies, cultures, and populations brought about by crossber trade in goods and services,  technology, and flows of investment, people, and information.

The wide ranging effects of globalization are complex and politically charged. As with the major technological advances, globalization benefits society as a whole while ha.rming certain groups. Miriam Webster defines it as the act or process of globalized, the state of being globalized, especially the development of an increasingly integrated global economy, marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets.

Who or what is pushing for globalization? How is globalization possibly a good thing? How is it possibly bad? What are the main concerns many people have about it?  Hello, I’m Colin Heaton, military veteran, historian, author, and welcome to this episode of Forgotten History.     The German b born American economist Theodore Lebett is credited with creating and coining the term globalization in a 1983 article titled the globalization of markets.

To many people, globalization is the uniformity of nations into a single entity, a mutually agreed upon arrangement connecting trade,  currencies, immigration, even politics. To others, globalization is a clarion call to a socialist superstate where independent nations would lose their autonomy.

Their populations would lose their individual rights and laws, identities, and cultures,  and become absorbed into a one world movement for better or worse. Examples of globalization include intergovernmental organizations. Globalization has made it possible for the international organizations to be created through treaties between many different countries.

Examples include the European Union, the United Nations, the World Bank, the World  Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund. Two, intergovernmental treaties. Many governments across the  world have engaged in treaties or trade policies that make it easier for international investment and trade. These treaties called free trade agreements including  the North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement CTA are examples.

Three, multinational corporations do business in many different countries. Globalization is the reason that multinational businesses  exist. For example, globalization allows major US corporations to sell their products to Mexico, Europe, Africa, South America, Australia, and China. Some would argue that we are already globalized with regard to our economies  and exchange of currencies, and that may be very true.

Yet, this is not a new or unique condition. For over 3,000 years, as the barter system began to fade, even ancient cultures and societies were trading on an international scale, and they used the same basic currencies of precious metals as their economic base. Middle Eastern kingdoms traded with Europeans for metals such as gold, silver, iron, ore, and copper.

Chinese silk was sold to the Greek and Roman empires. And spices and precious stones from India have been found in ancient burial sites in Northern Europe. Ivory from India and Africa was traded all over the known world, as was olive oil from the Mediterranean regions. Wool and wine from Western Europe found its way to Asia, with much of its international traffic being on the famous Silk Road, as well as the growing fleets of merchant ships reaching ports on three continents.

These were in fact dynamic international transactions and trade flourished. But was this true globalization? Some would argue yes. And it was only expanded by the beginning of the industrial revolution. More people, more wealth, and a greater variety of commodities could be shipped further and faster and in greater quantities than ever before.

As industry, science, and technology grew, the world grew smaller. Some would also argue that the North American Free Trade Agreement as well as the World Trade Organization are examples of globalization, but that only affects trade, not governments and their societies. Under these plans, nations are still independent and their people have the rights to choose their own paths.

Still, can this be considered globalization? I say no. Not in the strictest  sense. True globalization would mean creating a hedgemony of all nations, all cultures into a coalition of the willing to abide by being governed by a single approved state entity. True, unbridled globalization would mean following the example of the European Union, which while a minor example has some correlation.

The individual nations of Europe who joined the union still maintained their own national elections, but their mandates came from Brussels, Belgium. Globalists oppose capitalism or free trade across borders and consider it as protectionism, an economic policy that attempts to protect domestic  businesses from foreign competition and labor markets.

But true globalists want far more than that. The EU nations also had very little say in their own national immigration policies. Their unified currency was considered a  successful economic move, but their open borders between nations has not been what I would call the smart move. Perhaps the smartest nation in Europe to join the EU was Great Britain, who kept their own currency, the British pound, and did not adopt the euro.

And this made them a powerful factor with regard to international trade and economic power. Recently, following the Brexit, when Great Britain voted to leave the EU, mainly due to the open borders policies enforced upon them and the inability to enforce their own immigration laws, Poland, Austria, and Hungary, as prime examples, have tightened their own border security to protect their populations from unfettered and uncontrolled immigration.

Other EU nations such as Belgium, France, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, and Germany, paid the price for their being naive and altruistic  with regard to their extreme liberal applications of illogic. Many of these cultures, especially some Muslims, fail to a.ssimilate into their adoptive cultures.

They often refuse to even follow the local laws and in some cities they have est4blished their own private micro communities separate from the mainstream population. These are sometimes very d4ngerous areas for non Muslims to enter and even many police departments will not enter these areas where the locals there often practice Sharia law.

For example, one BBC report quoted a London Metropolitan Police officer named Rob. He stated, “Regarding no go areas in London, with gang crime in London, there are areas which you wouldn’t go into as a pair of cops in a car because of the fear of having things thrown at you when you’re driving  through certain estates, bottles, etc.

Bosses had told officers to avoid wearing uniforms in certain places in the capital. Also, Swedish police have named dozens of vulnerable areas marred by criminality. The study, an update on the previous report from  2015, names 61 places with low socioeconomic status where criminality has a significant effect on the community.

The local reported that those living in these places are often also vulnerable  to religious radicalization of the areas. 23 are considered especially vulnerable where there is a widespread disincclination to participate in the judicial process and the situation is considered  acute. Some of these immigrants who enter western countries are so radicalized that they even conduct honor k1llings  such as the case of Norah Fella al Mallei who is an Iraqi American woman living in Arizona k1lled by her father

for becoming too western by running her over with a car and an honor k1lling. He then fled to Egypt to avoid prosecution. Globalization also fails to take into account the radical thought processes and sense of entitlement brought by certain groups into their adoptive nations. Therefore, having a single government entity to enforce universal laws and alter cultural thought processes seems quite unlikely and many nations and societies would not want to change their ways.

Citing the report from the European Parliament, Europe is currently being overwhelmed by a wave of rape committed by Muslim migrants, particularly in Scandinavian countries. The number of rapes of white women and girls is rising. These women are considered by Muslim migrants as thirdcla.ss citizens.

In the English town of Rother Malone, 1,400 white girls were abused, raped,  and murd3red by Muslim gangs over a period of years. Many of these 1ncidents are gang rapes. Many local city councils in England, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark know very well how things stand, but conceal the real situation for fear of being accused of racism, which is ridiculous since Islam is a religion and not a race.

If despite all this rape charges are still brought, it is usually the perpetrators and not the v1tims who are treated leniently because the perpetrators claim that the women had consented to sexual intercourse. If these abuses are raised by local politicians, they are sometimes convicted of slandering ethnic groups.

These nations have been rocked by internal violence, terrorist  @ttacks, high crime rates, heavy pressure on their social services, stiff competition for their own domestic workers competing for work in the labor markets with immigrants, and cultural difficulties due to the lack of a.ssimilation, especially for many African and Middle Eastern immigrants.

Globalization doesn’t result in an increased number of jobs or make workers lives better. Instead, it redistributes jobs by moving production from high cost countries to lowercost ones. This means that high cost countries often lose jobs due to globalization as production goes overseas, as seen with US companies going overseas when taxes and operating costs are too high.

Globalists like the enemy of freedom, George Soros, would have us surrender our individual national currencies and move to a universally approved and easily controlled, if not manipulated, currency. Of course, he and his ruling cla.ss would manage the finances. They would eliminate national banks and independent financial institutions and control the world currency from a single monolithic financial center.

This organization would be managed by what George Orwell called those who are equal above others. Modern globalization would also mean an end to individual national politics if people like the socialist Soros had their way. Understand that people who like this idea are the ones who want to be in command, not part of the collective ma.sses who would have to follow the orders and abide by their rules.

Those in leadership would never follow their own laws because globalization would make them the law and the ma.sses would have no legal recourse. Another problem with globalization is determining who would control the education. What would that look like and how would that affect thousands of different cultures? Then there is the concept of a globalized military.

In essence, a global armed forces answerable  to a single authority in essence a dictatorship. We already see how the United Nations has consistently failed at peacekeeping when throwing sold1ers together from many nations. Also, countries like the US pay the majority of the UN bills, while many other nations who contribute virtually nothing and have abysmal human rights records still sit on important councils and have voting rights.

How would the globalist balance those books? Their problems with language barriers, religious and cultural differences, right down to d1etary issues according to religion would have to be addressed. That same problem would exist in the global education system mandated by a single authority. We saw how well that worked in national socialist Germany and communist nations where indoctrination was part of the educational process much like what liberal Marxists are trying to do in the United States today, Australia, and in Europe.

How would the dedicated globalists address those issues? Which political paradigm would they adopt? A representative republic, a democracy, a monarchy, a socialist state. Globalization in much smaller versions has been tried and failed,  such as the Roman Empire. It was under one currency, one government, one military system, and  one polytheistic religion until the 4th century.

The Catholic Church tried it with the Holy Roman Empire trying to reel in Europe’s rulers under a single authority,  the emperor, who only answered to the Pope, and that did not work out too well. Vladimir Lenon and Joseph Stalin tried it with communism, and that lasted 74 years. Again, the same program as the Romans minus religion.

China is still communist since 1949, but it is straining to become capitalist  economically while maintaining tyranny at home. The Japanese tried it in Asia as they extended their empire as well as Nazi Germany. Both nations tried to create a monolithic community under singular authority by use of military force  and terror.

The only answer that fits with their agenda is some form of socialism. Perhaps not communism  as it still allows for private ownership of property and sometimes allows for religion. But it also allows for complete population control under draconian penalties required for non compliance. It may be that program the globalists want to adopt as the elite live well.

They still make money  off the slave labor of others, steal intellectual property, and the government dictates every aspect of their lives and there is little if any public outcry for fear of reprisals. We have already seen the discredited World Health Organization, the idiotic Centers for Disease Control in the United States,  and the Biden administration’s ins@ne mandates on COVID 19 vaccines, boosters, masks, and lockdowns that ha.rmed millions and k1lled possibly tens of thousands and cost even more millions of people their

jobs and careers. People around the world, especially Americans who think for themselves, have rejected that idiocy in their majority. But that  resistance would be impossible under a globalized government. That’s why it would not work. You would first have to subdue a people, have them comply before you can rule.

They would also have to select socialism due to their desire to have collectivization of a.ssets in all areas. And this has already beg.un in the areas of agriculture. Nations such as China and individuals such as Bill Gates have been buying American farmland. One of the more ins@ne concepts is eliminating the meat industry in favor of meat grown in laboratories.

The control of agriculture is to control a population and it is also a national defense issue. Globalization eliminates the national concern  in favor of the new and expanded centrally controlled matrix. Returning to the currency issues, the globalists want to have all currencies switched to a digital currency eventually unified into a single global monetary system.

This is a bad idea on many levels. Such a program  would give the globalist government or even an individual government going on digital the means to control  what people spent money on, determine if they could in fact spend their own money on items they wished to have, and even restrict the amount of money they could spend entirely. Welcome to socialism.

They could more easily monitor and track all of your transactions. And if the government decided that it did not want you to buy a certain property, a certain automobile, or even firearms, they could close your account. Then the global government would have to contend with writing new laws for the collective.

How would they be able to codify laws and maintain the United States Bill of Rights for those people or the laws of other nations? Would they allow the first and second amendments to become global? Definitely not. Because totalitarian regimes do not want free speech, nor do they want an armed populace capable of stiff resistance. That is why the Europeans are at the mercy of their own governments and the EU right now.

What makes the globalists think that India and China, the two largest national populations, would agree to be governed in such a way? What about the countries under Sharia law? Would the religious nuts in Iran agree? How about parliamentary monarchies and the laws their people live by? How would they enforce  compliance? Would they demand that to be a part of a global environment, a global government, that Americans abandon their g.uns and internal combustion engines? Would they expect the Muslims to abandon their

faith? Globalization in total, including financial, economic, military, judicial, societal,  educational, cultural, national identity compliance is problematic and uninforceable. In essence, the concept  of total singular worldwide control in all areas is as ins@ne as any concept  can be.

For example, of 335 million Americans, if only one quarter of that population resisted such a move, the government loses. But this is what the liberal socialists want. Total control at every level to include rigging elections to try and achieve their objectives. This is why Biden opened the border. Even the departments of justice, Homeland Security, and Border Patrol acknowledge that at least 6 million, if not more than 8 million, illegal immigrants have crossed into the US with the Biden administration’s blessing

violating federal immigration law. Over 200 of these men captured were on the US and international terrorist watch list. The only question is how many escaped detection, adding to the unverified total number. This unfettered ma.ss migration is a part of globalism. These persons flood into American cities, draining resources and increasing crime rates and social tensions.

And many of them are not a.ssimilating. Just these facts alone illustrate that complete social, economic, and cultural globalization is a liberal Marxist fantasy. If globalization were simply restricted to business economics,  more people may be on board with it. But the socialists are not accepting half measures.

Soros, whose family benefited during the Holocaust in 1944 by turning in their fellow Jews and confiscating their wealth, is not about half measures. And people like him would never live under the same laws they would expect all of us to live by. Finally, the only way to resist this attempt  at total control is to effectively resist by voting, building civilian coalitions of like minded people, and making sure that  we have elected officials who share those concerns.

But just remember that we are not the world. We are Americans with our history, unifying culture,  currency, social mores, and laws, and a deep rooted sense of right and wrong. Other nations have their own histories, pride, and national identities. So, let’s keep it that way.  The coid9 crisis has shown us that our old systems are not fit anymore for the 21st century.

It has laid bare the fundamental lack of social cohesion, fairness, inclusion, and equality. Now is the historical moments a time not only to f1ght severe virus but to shape the system for the need for the post corona era. Most people think the world is run by presidents, prime ministers or parliament.

But the real power, the place where global policy is written long before it ever reaches your ballot isn’t in Washington, Brussels or Beijing. It’s in a private ski resort in Switzerland. The World Economic Forum, an unelected organization with no accountability, yet it shapes the global economy, rewrites government policy, and directs trillion dollar corporations like pieces on a chessboard.

Every January, private jets flooded to Davos. The heads of central banks, presidents and prime ministers, tech billionaires, and the most powerful NOS’s on Earth all gather behind closed doors to coordinate  everything. And the most disturbing part, none of this was ever voted on. Yet somehow it governs the people who govern the world.

And at the center of it all, the architect of this global business cartel is one man, Klaus Schwab, the softspoken engineer who built the World Economic Forum from nothing into the most influential organization on the planet. So, how exactly did the WF gain the power to influence governments that rule us all? And why are the richest corporations on earth following directives from a nonprofit in Switzerland? And how did one man rise from total obscurity to become the unelected architect of a global system that affects your money, your privacy, and

your freedom? Let’s try and find out. Hello, I’m Mike Droberg, Marine Corps veteran and filmmaker, and we will try to answer these questions on today’s episode of Forgotten History. Claus Schwab was born in 1938 in Ravingsburg, Germany. The son of Eugene Schwab, the managing director of a powerful machine building company called Echer of Vase.

Ravensburg was unusual during World W4r II. It was one of the few German industrial towns the Allies saw no strategic reason to burn down and Cher was one of those factories foolishly left untouched. Under Eugene Schwab, Esher Vase manufactured turbines, industrial equipment, and precision parts used throughout the German war machine.

Historical archives show that the Ravensburgg plant was used by the regime to support wartime production. It relied on forced labor brought in from concentration camp networks and supplied advanced turbine technology considered vital to the Nazi infrastructure. Klaus Schwab was a young child while this was happening, far too young to be involved.

But while most kids grow up around toys, Klaus grew up around engineers, industrialists, and power structures. And that mattered. After the war, Schwab stud1ed mechanical engineering, then economics, then public policy. He was studying systems, how industries work, how governments coordinate, and how influence travels through the layers of society.

In the 1960s, he worked at Zuler Echerov, helping oversee a nuclear policy program tied to South Africa’s aparthide government. By the late 1960s, one thing became clear. Claus Schwab didn’t want to run a company. He wanted to run the people who ran the companies. And in 1971, he launched an idea nobody had attempted before.

a private forum where world leaders and CEOs can meet in secret off camera without journalists or national laws getting in the way. He called it the European Management Forum. Schwab already understood something the rest of the world didn’t. If you bring the most powerful people on Earth into the same room, you don’t need a country to rule the world.

You only need a conference. and Schwab was the man running it. Throughout the 1970s and 80s, the forum expanded beyond Europe. American corporations joined. Asian corporations followed. Soon, heads of state began showing up. By the 1990s, Schwab renamed it the World Economic Forum, a title that sounded official.

And that’s when the shift happened. What started as a business conference quietly transformed into a policy engine. WF papers and  discussions began influencing global regulations on trade, climate, banking, technology, supply chains, public health, and energy. Governments soon adopted WEF language word for word in their own policy drafts.

Corporations echoed the same talking points across industries and Schwab realized something nobody else had. The forum had become more powerful than most  parliaments. And that’s when Schwab moved to expand his reach even further. He launched new programs designed to shape not just current leaders but future ones.

He pioneered global think tanks, public private initiatives, climate councils, digital governance boards, and economic task forces.  These bod1es had no constitutional authority, but their recommendations became global standards. Anyway, by the early 2000s, one thing had become undeniable.

The World Economic Forum was no longer a conference. It was a meeting place of a global business cartel, an alliance of corporations and political elites that could set the direction of entire nations. But the World Economic Forum doesn’t write laws. It writes the ideas that become laws. Every January in Davos, they release frameworks that corporations adopt first and governments enforce later.

And while the language sounds ha.rmless, sustainability, equity, and stakeholder capitalism, the real impact shows up in the life of the average American long before anyone realizes where the policy came from. But here’s how those ideas reach your front door. WF trade papers promote boardless supply chains and international ha.rmonization.

That means manufacturing drifts overseas. The places with cheaper labor and fewer regulations, American factories close down, town economies collapse, and generations of sk1lled workers vanish. Every time an American plant shut down and reopened in China or Mexico, it wasn’t random. It was the result of a global ideology that puts efficiency over national st4bility and corporations over workers.

The WF climate frameworks push strict emission targets and ESG scoring. When corporations follow those metrics, the cost gets pa.ssed down as higher electricity bills, higher gas prices, and bans on certain vehicles and appliances. Force compliance with green standards. For the elites in Davos, it’s policy.

For the average American, it’s a monthly bill they can’t escape. Next, WF banking proposals, influence global regulators and major investment firms. Their idea is push banks towards digital ID and environmental, social, and governance risk scoring. A scoring system used by banks, investors, and corporations to measure how aligned a company is with certain climate, social, and political objectives.

Companies with low ESG scores can lose investments, loans, contracts, or access to global markets. And because it originated from institutions like the WEF, it becomes a tool for enforcing ideology through corporations instead of governments. The result is a soft version of economic punishment. Businesses can lose credit.

Ordinary people can be denied services not because of law but because of guidelines the banks follow to look aligned. Tech giants like Google, Amazon and Microsoft are WF strategic partners. They work directly with the forum to create governance models for online content and data. This leads to uniform censorship policies, centralized data collection, and algorithms that suppress certain viewpoints.

Americans experience it as a sudden synchronized tightening of online speech. It feels coordinated because it is. In years before global supply chains collapsed, the WF promoted just in time logistics and global distribution networks. Corporations adopted the model because it was cheap and efficient.

But when the system broke, shelves emptied, medications ran short, car prices exploded, groceries spiked, baby formula vanished, and inflation surged. The everyday American paid the price for a system optimized for corporate margins, not national resilience. Also, the WF had spent years promoting coordinated global pandemic responses before 2020.

Their recommendations emphasized synchronized restrictions, public private health mandates, digital health tracking, and centralized authority during emergencies. When the crisis hit, the response in dozens of those countries looked identical. Small businesses suffered. Big corporations flourished. It wasn’t coincidence.

It was a blueprint. WF energy strategies pushed rapid transitions from traditional energy to centralized renewable grids. The shift pushed faster than infrastructure could handle and it led to higher utility bills, unst4ble grids, and restrictions on fossil fuel production. When energy becomes unreliable or artificially restricted, every item in the economy gets more expensive.

The guy in Nebraska or Ohio feels it long before Davos ever does.  Insects are becoming a trend. The western d1et has to kind of shift and change. And most importantly, it’s natural. It’s normal. And it’s the way that we have to feed the future. We’re facing big global challenges. People don’t believe that they can make a change.

But you really, really can because  you making a change is the only change you can really make. When it times is by 9 billion people, it makes a fundamental difference the way that we live in this planet. The WF published multiple proposals promoting insect protein as a sustainable replacement for beef. Governments and NOS’s soon echoed the idea.

This is why Americans have heard phrases like eat bugs and reduce meat consumption from official organizations. It didn’t come from citizens. It came from the institutions aligned with the same agenda. Meanwhile, small farmers face title regulations while large alternative protein companies receive  incentives. For the average American, that means fewer choices and higher prices for traditional food.

In 1992, Schwab created one of the most quietly influential programs in modern history, the Global Leaders for Tomorrow initiative. In 2004, it evolved into something more aggress1ve and far more ambitious. The Young Global Leaders Program,  YGL. The WF began handpicking hundreds of promising rising stars, politicians, tech founders, activists, training them to think the same way, speak the same language, and push the same coordinated policies. The results were staggering.

The list of YGL alumni reads like a global power map. They include Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel  Macron, Mark Zuckerberg, Gavin Nuome, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos as inner circle partners, dozens of national level ministers and central bank officials, and influential NOS’s and UN leaders. They were the people the WF identified early, the ones they believed would help shape the future. And they did.

When crisis struck, economic, public health, or environmental, these leaders responded in almost identical ways using almost identical language rooted in an almost identical policy framework. That wasn’t coincidence. That was training. Schwab himself openly bragged about his influence when he said, “We penetrate the cabinets.

” He wasn’t exaggerating. These individuals were not simply graduates. They were the a.ssets of the world view. A belief system of global governance, corporate partnership, international alignment, and managed populations. The World Economic Forum has confirmed they’re investigating former chairman Claus Schwab after his seemingly abrupt resignation on Monday.

An anonymous whistleblower sent a letter to the organization and accused Schwab of misusing forum funds and resources. The Wall Street Journal first reported the news. The letter also criticized the forum’s workplace culture and governance. The journal writes it included allegations that Claus Schwab asked junior employees to withdraw thousands of dollars from ATMs on his behalf and used forum funds to pay for private in room ma.ssages at hotels.

It’s always ma.ssages at hotels. Uh this alleges that his wife Hilda, a former forum employee, scheduled token forumf funed meetings in order to justify luxury holiday travel at the organization’s expense. For years, the WF operated like a flawless machine, synchronized, polished, carefully controlled.

But behind the sleek panels,  and the smiling photo ops, insiders began to whisper about a very different environment. WF staff, former employees, and political attendees quietly spoke of a culture built around secrecy, elitism, and a level of personal indulgence far removed from the global responsibility preached from the  stage.

Over time, a shadow formed around Klaus Schwab. For years, European diplomats and Davos regulars shredded rumors about Schwab’s behavior. stories involving elite wellness sessions, inappropriate conduct with ma.ssage workers, and questionable interactions  during the private after hours side of Davos that never made the news.

Nothing was printed in official reports. Nothing was pursued publicly, but the stories floated around European political cla.ss for decades, always tied to the same man at the center of the forum. Inside the WF itself, staff began raising concerns about how money flowed through the organization. Anonymous employees described extravagant spending, misallocation of donor funds,  and money disappearing to initiatives no one could trace.

As Schwab aged into his 80s, a new generation inside the WF began pushing for change. They accused him of treating the organization like personal property. a monarchy disguised as a nonprofit.  They complained that the form was becoming stagnant under his gr.i.p. There were reports of shouty matches behind closed doors, clashing egos, and factions forming between the old guard loyalists and the younger technocrats.

And then came the revolt. By 2023 2024, the internal frustrations couldn’t  be contained. Major donors demanded new leadership. Corporate partners whispered about a fresh vision. Board members privately urged Schwab to retire. Several WF ex3cutives resigned abruptly.  Internal documents hinted at mismanagement.

Whistleblowers contacted journalists anonymously. The board prepared secession plans without Schwab’s involvement. For the first time in over half a century, the founder was no longer in control. his own people that he had trained, elevated, and guided finally forced the issue. Schwad’s empire had grown so large that it began to turn against its architect.

And as the revolt spread through the halls of Davos, it became clear that the man who shaped the WF could no longer lead it. Klaus Schwab officially announced his resignation from the World Economic Forum in May of 2024, stepping down after more than 53 years of running the most powerful unelected organization on the planet.

But the moment he walked off stage, something unexpected happened. Not within Davos, but outside of it. The elites continued pushing the same policies, the same global agendas, but the world stopped nodding along. People began to recognize the pattern. Voters who never cared about politics  started paying attention.

Families who once trusted institutions now questioned every message. And the quiet shift that the global elites hoped no one would notice turned into a global awakening. Across the West, populist movements surged, not because of rage, but because  the people finally saw how much control had been taken from them.

Outsider politicians like Donald Trump, independent podcasters like Joe Rogan, online journalists, and creators with no corporate backing suddenly had more influence than legacy media. Decentralized voices broke the monopoly on information. Governments that once echoed Davos word for word began rejecting its policies.

ESG collapsed under public pressure. Censorship regimes buckled as platforms revolted. And the world discovered something the WF never planned for. Once people see who’s been pulling the strings, they stop letting the strings control them. Schwab may be gone, but so is the era of bl1nd obed1ence, I hope. And the elites are learning the hard way that the public they try to manage is finally waking up.

Let us know your thoughts about the WF in the comments below.  This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones.

People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a ma.ss extinction. And all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you?  Greta Thumbberg’s words echo through the United Nations and across the world. A child shaming nations for destr0ying the planet.

To millions, she became a symbol of truth and courage. To others, she was a sign that something had changed. that fear itself had become the message. For the first time in history, environmentalism wasn’t just a cause. It was policy. Billiondoll programs, carbon markets,  and global treaties built on one untested promise that government could rewrite the laws of nature.

They called it a Green New Deal. But before we decide whether it can save the world, we should ask who it really serves. Who holds the power when every breath, every mile, every light switch carries a price? And when saving the planet becomes a business, who’s really being saved? Let’s try and find out. Hello, I’m Mike Joberg, Marine Corps veteran and filmmaker, and we will try to answer these questions on today’s episode of Forgotten History.

If you look at the 10 hottest years ever measured, they’ve all occurred in the last 14 years. And the hottest of all was 2005. The scientific consensus is that we are causing global warming.  I am Al Gore. I used to be the next president of the United States of America. That was Vice President Al Gore in 2006.

The moment climate change stopped being a scientific discussion and became a political crusade. But even while preaching sacrifice, Gore himself lived the life of a king. Multiple mansions, private jets, and an energy bill that dwarfed entire neighborhoods. His Nashville estate alone consumed over 20 times the power of an average American home.

Yet his film, An Inconvenient Truth, declared the signs settled, the danger imminent, and humanity on a clock. At the time, 2005 was indeed the hottest year on record by NASA and Noah. But that record only stretched back to the late 1800s when a few hundred thermometers in Europe and North America tried to represent the entire planet.

By today’s standards, accurate global measurements didn’t begin until 1979 when satellites finally gave us full planet coverage. Before that, most of it was educated guesswork stitched together by models and a.ssumptions. To put this in perspective, mainstream science says the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old.

That means our precise measurements cover less than a blink of an eye. a few billionth of a percent. From that narrow record emerged a multi billion dollar movement in a new kind of faith, not  spiritual, but financial, built on fear. And that p4nic indeed paid off. Al Gore wasn’t just warning the world about Corbin.

He was investing in it. Two years before his documentary hit theaters, he co founded Generation Investment Management with a former Goldman Sachs ex3cutive. Their mission was simple. Turn environmental concern into capital. They called it sustainable investing. Wall Street called it scalable. By 2008, carbon had a price tag and trading pollution became a global market.

Companies could buy and sell the right to emit. Polluters paid, but banks, brokers, and fund managers earned fees for every trade and every credit issued. The cost of pollution became someone else’s profit, and the green economy was born. Industrialized nations agreed to binding limits on emissions and created the first international carbon markets.

By the 2000s, the European Union expanded that idea into the EU emissions trading system, eventually covering power plants, factories, and airlines across the continent. And by 2010, the concept of net zero had become a moral badge for governments and corporations alike. It was a clean ledger, not a clean planet.

The climate crisis had evolved into a global economy and the only thing greener than that message was the money behind it. Then came the next evolution, carbon taxes and trading. Carbon tax sounds simple. The government puts a price on carbon dioxide, the gas released when we burn oil, coal, or natural gas. The idea is that if pollution costs money, companies will pollute less.

In reality, it’s a hidden cost built into everything we use. Energy runs a world. It powers trucks, factories, homes, and farms. When you tax carbon, you tax the entire chain that keeps modern life moving. Companies don’t pay those costs. Consumers do. Prices rise, fuel searchcharges appear, and heating bills climb.

The atmosphere doesn’t change, the balance sheet does. Supporters call it market based climate policy. They claim the revenue funds clean energy projects, but real audits tell a different story. In the EU, less than half of the carbon auction revenue went to environmental programs. And in Canada and Australia, most of it was recycled into rebates or general spending.

The rest of the money disappears into government budgets or other line items few voters ever see or audit. Then came the next evolution, carbon trading. Instead of a flat tax, corporations could buy carbon credits, permits to pollute backed by promises of reduction elsewhere. It created a new global marketplace, a financial instrument built on air.

Polluters could pay to keep polluting as long as they funded someone else’s project to plant a tree or capture methane halfway around the world. In theory, offsets were supposed to help pay farmers in the developing world to preserve forests and balance out pollution elsewhere. But most of that money never reached the people on the ground.

Governments and brokers signed the deals. Locals lost the land. Companies in the west kept burning the fuel while villages in Africa were told to stop grazing their cattle. The carbon stayed on paper, not in the air. The rich kept burning, the poor kept paying.  5 years ago, we introduced a vision for  social and ecological transformation big enough to save our planet, the Green New Deal.

The critics jumped against it immediately.  They said it was an impossible dream, too impractical, not serious enough. And they were wrong. In the last 5  years, we have made major strides in tackling the climate crisis and creating millions of jobs by building together a diverse  coalition of people committed to a better future.

From community organizers and frontline climate advocates to  labor organizers and everyday working people, we are winning with a movement that  rejects the dystopian future and is committed to building a new one.  AOCC’s voice fills the room. Confident, triumphant, she says the Green New Deal created millions of new jobs, lifted people out of poverty, and set America on a clean path to the future.

It’s a powerful claim, but unfortunately it isn’t accurate. The Green New Deal was a congressional resolution, not a law. What exists today are offshoot programs, energy subsid1es, electric vehicle incentives,  and manufacturing credits folded into later legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Those created hundreds of thousands of jobs, mostly construction, short term projects, and factory startups, but nowhere near millions. The millions of jobs figure came from the economic modeling, not the actual results. Optimistic forecasts written before a single dollar was spent. If every Green New Deal proposal had pa.ssed and been fully funded, models projected millions of jobs, but projections aren’t proof.

Theory and truth don’t share the same ledger. But while politicians promised millions of new jobs, tens of thousands of jobs quietly disappeared. Under the banner of the Green New Deal, investors pulled capital from fossil fuels, regulators tightened compliance, and America’s coal belt turned into a graveyard of shuttered plants. Over 40,000 coal jobs vanished in 10 years.

Towns built upon power stations reduced  to silence as utilities chased subsid1es for wind and solar. Oil refineries followed. In California, entire facilities were converted or closed outright, wiping out thousands of highpaying union jobs. And for every refinery worker laid off, five to seven support jobs disappeared with them. truck drivers, maintenance crews, restaurants, and small businesses that kept those towns alive.

These weren’t just statistics. They were livelihoods replaced not by green factories or renewable prosperity, but by headlines and empty promises. The old energy economy was being dismantled faster than the new one could stand. And the Green New Deal didn’t just stay in Washington. Within a year, its language net zero, sustainability and equity appeared in speeches from London to Brussels and from Davos to Beijing. It wasn’t the law anymore.

It was a global scr.i.pt. Then the United Nations promoted Agenda 2030. The European Union introduced fit for 55 and the World Economic Forum rebranded capitalism itself as stakeholder capitalism. The words changed, but the mission didn’t. Reshape economies through climate compliance and centralized oversight. Every nation was told to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

A goal that sounded scientific, but rested largely on carbon accounting. Instead of reducing output, industry simply offset it. For every ton of carbon released, a credit was purchased, a tree was promised, or a project was announced somewhere else. The pollution didn’t stop. The paperwork just got cleaner. And yet, no one can even agree on what safe carbon emission looks like.

Scientists talk about carbon budget, the amount we can burn before the planet warms too much. But the numbers swing by hundreds of billions of tons depending on who’s counting. There’s no finish line, no magic threshold, just a moving target wrapped in certainty. The irony is that the entire world is being taxed, regulated, and restructured around a carbon number that doesn’t actually exist.

But regardless of an agreed upon carbon limit, trillions of dollars continue to flow through new green bonds, ESG funds, and carbon markets. Banks and corporations reinvented themselves  as environmental saviors while still extracting, refining, and drilling under different names. Developing countries borrow to comply, trading sovereignty for sustainability loans they could never repay.

The same institutions that once financed industry now financed guilt, and both were profitable. Climate policy became less about  climate and more about control. Who can build? Who can travel? Who can grow? Who could produce? And just like that, the crisis became a currency.

Every regulation, every limit, every tracked carbon footprint justified  as a moral necessity. Saving the planet had become a business plan. And the only thing growing faster than emissions was power. If you follow the money, the saviors start to look familiar. The same investment firms that once financed oil now lead the green transition.

Black Rockck, Vanguard, and State  Street, managing over 20 trillion combined, now shape entire industries through ESG scores that turn morality into a metric. Every rule, every restriction, every new program creates another fee, fund and market. The governments take their share through carbon taxes, green bonds, and climate subsid1es.

NOS’s and consultants collect grants and administration fees to manage the paperwork. And the oil giant didn’t disappear. They rebranded. The same companies that once pumped the fuel now sell the forgiveness, investing in offsets and renewable portfolios funded by the same public they once applied. And who pays for it all? The people who can’t afford to play the game.

The worker paying more at the pump. The family watching their electric bill climb.  And the small business squeezed by the cost of compliance. The truth is simple. The planet isn’t the product. you are your labor, your choices, your dependence on the system that tells you it’s saving you. Scientists tell us the planet’s recent warming is largely man made, driven by modern industry and carbon.

Maybe they’re right, but Earth’s history didn’t begin in the industrial age. Long before the first factory rose or the first engine turned,  the planet’s climate shifted on its own, sometimes vi0lently. Entire civilizations vanished beneath those changes. Doggerland, once a land bridge between Britain and Europe, lies drowned beneath the North Sea.

The ancient city of Pablo Potry rests off the coast of Greece, about 5,000 years old and roughly 10 to 15 ft underwater. And off Japan’s coast, the Yanoduni Monument sits nearly 80 ft below the surface. None of them burned coal, drilled oil, or drove cars. They were swallowed by nature’s own cycles of ice and melt.

A reminder that earth has always changed with or without us. So when modern prophets promise salvation through taxes, markets, and fear, remember this. The seas were rising long before we learn to measure them. And they’ll keep rising long after the last slogan fades with or without our help. Don’t get me wrong.

We should respect this planet. It’s the only one we’ve got. We should use cleaner energy, reduce waste, and leave something better behind for those who come after us. But progress has to make sense. It has to work for everyone, not just the corporations, the governments, or the investors who’ve learned to profit from fear.

Real stewardship means balance, protecting the earth and the people who live on it. Anything less isn’t environmentalism. It’s control dressed as virtue. Because the truth is clean energy is nose clean. Solar panels and wind turbines depend on toxic mining for lithium, cobalt,  and rare earth metals. Most of it done in countries with no environmental safeguards.

And when they break or wear out, they become h4zardous. Turbine blades can’t be recycled. They’re buried in landfields the size of football fields. Solar panels leak lead, cadmium, and chromium when discarded. Compared to gas or coal, they produce less power, cost more to maintain, and d1e decades sooner. The planet doesn’t need false solutions.

It needs honest ones. Let us know your thoughts on the green new steel in the comments below. Thank you for watching Forgotten History. Please like, share, and subscribe. If you have any comments or show ideas, we’d love to hear from you. Thanks again.